Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Zsinj 2

The following was copied from the voting page per masssiveego's request. RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 12:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Fails my criteria. --Masssiveego 03:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You've been opposing (almost) all RfAs. What exactly are you criteria? G . H  e  03:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stubbleboy found his standards, here, but Lord knows why he's opposing - they're so vague that he could oppose anyone for any reason, and be able to claim they failed his standards. RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 08:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he's making a point? RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 08:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe no one should be intimidated from voting. This discussion is better held in the comments or talk page.  Please try to keep all comments on topic on the RFA vote on hand, as any other off topic comments may be seen as a disruption.  --Masssiveego 10:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that I've moved this to the discussion page, would you care to explain exactly how the candidate has failed your criteria? It's useless to simply say that they have, without providing enough information for them to improve themselves for the next time they run in an RfA, so please take the time to explain what they've done wrong, and what they need to do. RandyWang ( chat me up/fix me up ) 12:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Masssiveego does not explain Masssiveego's reasons for opposing, even though we value discussion just as much as voting here.     --Interiot 14:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have failed several of your criteria, Masssiveego, and if I am made an admin with my current nomination, I will continue to attempt to meet them. --ZsinjTalk 12:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For clarification of the criteria for others, I will list here those of Masssiveego's I have failed here, given that I actually see which ones qualify:
 * Hardworking, see Martha Stewart Depends typically non-bot 30 posts a day minimum or 3 featured articles.
 * The edit summary lists, "fails to understand workings. Bot vandalism" and I would like to at least defend my bot here. The armount of time for which it was banned for a minor, although damaging, error was 7 minutes. I was in IRC when this happened, as I change my nick to "ZsinjBot" just so edits made by the bot that are caught by the IRCbots are brought to my attention easier. I was in contact with the admin who blocked it for the entire duration of the block and after it was fixed (this was on its first day of operation, too), it has not had a single mistake.
 * I also realize that you usually don't make lengthy replies to peoples vote, but as I see you are one to research things in depth, I will at least hope you will read this: We all make mistakes. Any mistakes I have ever made in the past concerning policy were quickly pointed out to me. This feelback I welcome with open arms as by being wrong is the best way to learn what is right.
 * I would also like to add that Masssiveego has the best criteria for any RFA participant, including qualities referenced by names such as Stephen Hawking, The Sound of Music, and Pope John Paul II. Kudos to you! --ZsinjTalk 13:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Failing my Criteria
Understand the workings of Wikipedia.

Zsinjbot
"Please stop Zsinjbot (at least for now)

Your bot has changed several --helpme-- templates in welcomes that were marked with and { instead of {. Please halt its progress in doing so so that no more users are erroneously listed as needing help. Jfingers88 02:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I blocked User:ZsinjBot temporarily and then unblocked - just to stop it operating. Do not operate User:ZsinjBot again, until we can discuss the situation. --Commander Keane 02:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Re: ZsinjBot

I'd love to discuss it. I've previously recieved a message from Jfingers88 stating me of the problem. I immediately stoped it's operation. After analyzing the problem edits, as noticed in the pause in the contributions, I then resumed ZsinjBot doing every edit manually. I might have been going too fast, hence the autoblock, for which I appologize. If there is anything else you would like to discuss, we can do it here on your talk page. --ZsinjTalk 02:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would rather we discuss here, since there may be other parties involved. As you know, I have lifted the block (including autoblocks). How did you make the errors that substituted all the Welcome message things incorrectly? How can you ensure it doesn't happen again?--Commander Keane 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You also screwed up (as a person, not bot) again with this edit. Can you use the show preview.--Commander Keane 02:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the "screwed up" language, it wasn't very nice but I was rather tired of thinking people needed help in Category:Wikipedians_looking_for_help only to find it was an error. I guess you can continue your one week trial of the bot - as long as you don't make any more errors. You will also have to explain what happened today at your bot request.--Commander Keane 03:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad to help. I hope your bot works out ok in the end. Keep up the good work, and if the bot doesn't pass inspection, you can always fix up the code some more to prevent further errors. Jfingers88 03:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have the template:test in my userpage personally just because I want to be able to store some templates there I might need, is there any way you could restrict the bot to user talk pages?--BigCow 17:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)"


 * This suggestion was immediately implemented after this incident. --ZsinjTalk 14:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Biting the Newbies
Thank you for taking the time to review my edits to a banned user's talk page, but I do not think it was appropriate to accuse me of vandalism simply for a little cleaning up. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, so if there is a policy against deleting clearly outdated information on another user's talk page, please direct me to that information and accept my apologies for the improper edit. But even if you disagree with my edit, placing a vandalism warning template on my own talk page seems a little over the top. All you had to do was politely ask why I edited as I did and I would have been more than happy to give you my reasoning. Please don't bite the newbies. Thanks for your time and happy editing. --Satori Son 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thank you for coming to me with a question. From your original edit, which consisted to removing a welcome template from a registered user's talk page, I had come to the conclusion that if the user who's page you edited did not want that information displayed, the user could remove it for him or herself. Removing content from other user's talk pages is usually not conducted unless the page contains content that is espically detrimental to the encyclopedia, such as 500,000 bytes of repeated characters or markup used to deliberately make the page inaccessible (such as thousands of pictures preventing the browser from loading the page).

In a case such as yours, I would like to remind you that the editing of user's talk pages should only be done when vandalism warnings or block messages are removed and need to be put back, or when the user has vandalized their own page in a way that hampers others from accessing it.

If you have any further questions, you have already found my talk page and I invite you back to it. Thanks, ZsinjTalk 22:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. As a fellow member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, I know how much time and effort you devote to keeping Wikipedia top quality, so the time you taken here to provide a thoughtful and thorough response is greatly appreciated.

Respectfully, however, you have still not provided me with the official Wikipedia policy, or even guideline, that my edit violated. What you have provided is your personal opinion. And as thoughtful and reasonable as it is, it is still just that: the opinion of a fellow non-admin user.

My humble opinion in this case is that when a user has been repeatedly warned for true vandalism, has continued to vandalize Wikipedia article and ends up being blocked by an admin, at that time it is appropriate to remove the stock welcome text from his talk page.

But the fact that we have a difference in opinion as to the proper edits to another user’s talk page is not the issue. You may well be right, but my issue of contention specifically involves your placing of a vandalism warning template on my own talk page. If you disagree with any edit I make, you are, of course, more than welcome to revert it and explain your reasoning, as you have considerately done above. But to use the tools Wikipedia gives us to fight vandalism to impose your personal editing style on other users is, I believe, wholly inappropriate. Such tactics smack of elitism at best, and, at worst, intimidation.

I apologize for any misunderstanding as to the original edit, and, again, thank you for your time. --Satori Son 22:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you are watching mytalk page, and I appologize for the delay in replying to you, as I am currently out of the state on vacation until late next week.

You seem to be accusing me of vandalism by placing a, relatively, innocent warning template on your talk page. However, I encourage you to do exactly as I encourage: to do with your talk page what you want. I will take no offence, nor incur any hard feelings if you were to simply remove the template from your talk page.

I appologize for any inconvienience I may have caused you, and again, if you would like to further discuss this, perhaps later next week when I get back home, I would be more than willing. --ZsinjTalk 02:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Tutoring Failing to explain a template
"You sent me a message saying offensively that i had vandalised the encylopedia. I have not done that. I have not put any racist, bullying, wife beating views. Why are you so offensive. And every time i try and reply to you you threaten me again. You sent me a message with no explanation to what you were referring to, ut simply informing me to not vandlaise the encylopedia and then not to put "nonsese" on the encylcopedia. Why can't you see how offensive and bullying that is. I didn't even know you could send messages and then suddenley from out of the blue you send me a threat, with no explanation. You are a bully. I cannot see how i vandalised the thing in any way. But then you send me an e-mail with no explanation, and no chance of reply. I have not done any vandalism yet i am not able to reply to you. You should not be in admin if you take liberites to send people such an abusive and hurtful message without explanation. Will you ban me for answering back. Are you a bully. I should not be banned simply for trying to communicate with you in reply to an ofensive attention seeking message. I have other computers so don't think you can just destroy me. Are you like the type of people who join the police or become security guards just so they can bully people and pretend they have the law on their side. This message is written by Lonympics. This is not vandalism this is the only way i have of replying to you. Who do you think you are. I predict you had a political dissagreement and decided to missuse your power to tell me i had done something wrong. I know bullies often try to become message board moderators so they can bully people on the internet, did you only become an admin on this website so you could bully people you dissagree with. Don't think you can stop me just by bullying me. You seem eager to let people edit you site in a complimentrary ways but not to point out you have been a bully. This is not vandalising your page this is answering back to your bullying. It is not my fault if if other bullies will back your side straight away. I bet admins of wilpedia will back eachiother up like the police do. Tell me which article i had vandalised before you sent me the message. Tell me that. And don't be so offensive. Will i get banned without reply. If i do that just proves my pointa bout you. You were deeply offensive to me and yet expect me to act like three year old being told off, and not answer back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lonympics (talk • contribs) ."
 * I'd like to make a response to this incident in specific. "I have other computers so don't think you can just destroy me." ...threats against Wikipedia. "I have not done any vandalism yet i am not able to reply to you." ...which is instantly invalidated due to this quote being in a reply to me. Lonympics has also been indefinately banned from Wikipedia for incivility and personal attacks, so I find the potential argument against me in this case also invalid. --ZsinjTalk 14:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Trigger Happy/Understanding Policy.
"I see you're pretty good at finding vandals for me to block, even if they're really obvious, please don't start at the test4 warning, try giving them a test3 before the last warning, warning templates actually work most of the time :). You could also insert template:bv in some cases... --Obli (Talk)? 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)"
 * The user talk page in which I went straight to a test4 was one which already had warnings by other users on it for previous offenses. Strikes are cumulative and if more than three are accumulated within a short period of time, the user can be blocked. This was the user's third and last warning (test4 specifically says "last warning"). --ZsinjTalk 14:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"what is nonsense?

I thought this Wikipedia project was about open source - free speech Who nominated YOU to decide on what is nonsense or not? Why not rename the project Zsinj-pedia? I have heard about editors like you who just want to make the edit according to their own viewpoint rather than bring about a concensus. I happen to think my text was in context and informative and is more useful to people wanting to know the meaning of the term than some of the nonsense you have 'elected' to include on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.123.140.77 (talk • contribs) ."
 * Because this users contributions are completely legitimate and welcomed. Not. --Zsinj</b><sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 14:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Not active enough with the Wikipedia Community
Village pump or equavelent posts.

[edit]

--Masssiveego 04:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to your cut + pastes from my user talk page and its archives, I notice that you've happened to find every disgruntled person to have reached my user talk page since March. Is the fact that people who are on the other end of my actions not understanding the reason behind them that motivates you to decide that I am a bad person? In all the cases I could, I attempted to reason with the individuals. However, in a few of them, I found the message to be more of a rant that an attempt at civil discussion. In cases like these, the best course of action is to ignore: exactly what I did. --<b style="color:#22AA00;">Zsinj</b><sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 14:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)